(09-21-2020, 08:52 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(09-20-2020, 10:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: I don't see it as a deal.  
Both things reduce abortion.  Birth control, and a stricter ban.  One or the other or both are all good choices.  It's like if the boss offers you a steak dinner, and you're saying "sure, but you have to throw in a lobster too or no deal."

No one wants to have an abortion, stupid. Not the actual procedure, at least. Even if abortion were completely unregulated, the goal should be reducing abortions as much as possible, by making every other option freely available to women. I would even have the state pay for their medical bills during pregnancy and adoption fees (for the adopting parents). I realize this isn't a libertarian or conservative position, but I would be willing to make that compromise to potentially protect the life of an unborn individual. 

I'd go even further than that. I would give every man one free vasectomy and reversal. If he chooses not to exercise this option, he is on the hook for child care until the child is independent, whether or not the woman gives it up for adoption. You could even make a database for men who had their vasectomy. I don't care. It would be worth it to me to go to these lengths to safeguard and maintain the dignity of human life. 

At some point, people need to accept responsibility for risky behavior. If you want the freedom to take risks, you live with the decisions.

While I totally agree about no one wanting abortions and wanting to reduce them, there is a problem with the adoption part of your scenario. Right now, there are way more unwanted children out there then there are parents willing to adopt them. If they are a child of color or are handicapped, the divide skyrockets. How do you get people to adopt these new children, when we can't adopt out the ones we already have? It's not completely about finances. It's about making these kids feel wanted, so they become good adults. If no one wants them and they grow up aging out of the foster care system without a real family that can be a recipe for disaster. Kids that feel "thrown away" by society often grow up with a chip on their shoulder and can turn to crime. If we're gonna bring all these new kids into the world, you're gonna have to find ways to make them feel wanted. 

As for the vasectomy part, why does it have to be the man? Why not have women use birth control implants? Lets make this a 50/50 thing. If you offer free vasectomies to men, you need to offer free birth control implants to women. I would certainly be in favor of that. There are too many people having babies that can't take care of them now. As far as opting out and making people financially responsible for the kids whether they are adopted or in foster care, that's a nice idea, but what if the parents don't have jobs, are homeless or just don't have verifiable income in order to be forced to take care of those kids? What then? 

I believe all forms of birth control should be free. This option would be a lot cheaper than paying for families on welfare who have 10 kids who are all in special ed. (My sister is a Special Ed teacher and she had a family whose 6 kids all were in her classes over the years. They were on welfare the entire time. The parents even came in for conferences one time and referred to the 5th child as the "genius" of the family.) I'm sorry, but these kinds of people need to stop breeding. 

It's easy to say people need to accept responsibility for themselves, but in reality, you can't make them, no matter how hard you try or how many rules you implement. As humanity continues on, a large portion of the population are lazy, irresponsible and selfish and they will never change.

---

(09-21-2020, 09:03 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(09-20-2020, 11:24 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: It's not immoral at all. It's common sense. Some people don't have it. Are you willing to adopt some unwanted babies if this law gets overturned?

---

I don't force anybody to do anything. I don't make rules. I have no power at all.

---

It's neither moral nor common sense to say, "Well, if we say it's not really human then there's no reason we can't kill it." And your "wanted" argument is specious because you're saying that no life is better than a potentially bad one, a decision that you make for someone else from your place of privilege. As Reagan paraphrased said, I can't help but notice that you, having already been born, favor denying that right to others and then try to call yourself moral.

You can't kill something that doesn't exist to begin with. IMO, that nullifies your entire argument.

---